Tuesday, June 29, 2010

As those of my loyal readers who read my other sites know, I am no particular fan of British Airways (BA). Therefore I am delighted to be able to confer upon our "illustrious national carrier" my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Award for their disgraceful treatment of Mirko Fischer.

Mr Fischer, and his pregnant wife, had the misfortune to fly with BA in April 2009. Mrs Fishcer was assigned a middle seat, and Mr Fischer a window seat.

Mrs Fischer asked her husband to swap seats, as it would make her journey less uncomfortable.

No problem?

Alas dear readers you forget one thing, this was a BA flight (run for the convenience of the airline, not the customer).

When the Fischers swapped seats, Mr Fischer placed himself next to a 12 year old boy.

Mr Fischer attempted to argue his case, and pointed out that his wife was more comfortable sitting by the window etc.

To no avail.

The staff member informed Mr Fischer that the flight would not take off until he sat where he was told etc etc.

Therefore, in order to get on with the flight, Mr Fischer swapped again with his wife.

On returning to Blighty he wrote to BA asking for an apology. This being BA all he received was the usual mealy mouthed corporate bullshit, that large organisations spew forth to customers who don't swallow hook line and sinker the corporate propaganda that would have them believe that the company gives a fark about the customer (let's face very few large corporations give a fark about the the customer, they only like to say that they do).

Anyhoo, Mr Fischer decided that he wasn't going to roll over and play the corporate bullshit game with BA. He filed a claim at Slough County Court, arguing that the airline's long-standing policy of forbidding men from sitting next to unaccompanied children not only cast the whole male gender in an unsavoury light, but was essentially sex discrimination.

BA is now reported to have admitted sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case, but only in his case, and agreed to pay £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages. Mr Fischer will pay this money to children's charity, and also put some of his own money in as well.

BA have told the BBC that the policy was not discriminatory. However, they also claim that it is now under review.

I understand that Boris Johnson had a similar experience in 2006, despite sitting with his own children at the time.

Mr Johnson wrote in the Telegraph:

"How many paedophiles can there be?

Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?"

Here is some free advice/questions to BA:

1 Not all males are paedophiles.

2 Some women are paedophiles (why does the rule not apply to them as well?).

3 What exactly do you think will happen on a plane full of people, where there are call buttons above every seat?

4 Do you think that making every child afraid of every male adult is a good thing?

BA, well deserving Prats of The Week!

Those of you who wish to debate this issue with Willie Walsh, CEO of BA, feel free to drop him a line willie.walsh@ba.com.

"....I say again, without any lack of clarity or fudging of the issue, drugs should be legalised.

Once legalised, they can be taxed and the public properly educated as to their effects.

The legalisation will bring about the end of the stranglehold that the criminal gangs currently have on many of the run down estates in this country. The ending of their supply of easy money will remove their power, kudos and "bling"; their power over others will end.

That surely is a good thing?

Is it not ironic that those who would most strongly resist the legalisation of drugs are those who currently make money of them?...."

Given that I am a middle aged accountant and company director, hardly a criminal or revolutionary, if I can see that the current situation is a shambles and am explicitly calling for the legalisation of drugs why is it that our elected representatives (some of who have taken/continue to take drugs) continue to pursue the same failed policies?

Kind regards

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"

Here is the reply I received today from Richard Mullins (who recently was in a tiz over legal highs being used at music festivals such as Glastonbury).

As can be seen, Nanny has stated very firmly that she will not legalise drugs; stating in a patronising manner "there is good reason" for her actions. I might almost suggest that there is a tone of "shut and and go away" in the reply:)

Funny that, as a voter I thought that I was allowed to express an opinion and ask a question of my elected representatives?

I would note that whenever a politician says "never" in such "final" manner, and states that they have "no intention", then you know that they know that they are on intellectually, factual and morally very shaky ground.

Anyhoo, Nanny's reasoning is a tad "wobbly", here's a few reasons why:

1 She assumes that drug taking equates to addiction, ignoring the fact that there are thousands who use drugs in clubs every Friday and Saturday who are not addicted, nor will ever become addicted.

2 Nanny also ignores the fact that caffeine, fags and booze are also addictive and potentially dangerous drugs; yet they are legal.

3 Nanny is worried that legalisation would "confuse" her healthy living message.

4 I note with a degree of disbelief, that Nanny feels it may be difficult to tax drugs. Since when has the complexity of tax legislation ever stopped her before from taxing something?

5 There is an undercurrent of wishful thinking in Nanny's note that she would very much like to ban booze and fags as well.

6 Nanny states that legalisation would lead to a substantial increase in use. On what empirical evidence is this assertion based?

7 Nanny is worried that if other countries don't follow suit, in legalising drugs, then this country would become a shopping paradise for drugs dealers. Is that not for the customs officials of other countries to worry about?

Is it not ironic that the leader of the "free world" and, allegedly, the leader and chancellor plus others in another country have used class A drugs yet continue to deny others the right to abuse their bodies in the same way?

Drugs were banned in the early 20th century because the "morality movement" managed to gain the upper hand in the legislative process. Had events continued in their favour booze would have also been banned here, as it was in the USA.

We have this hypocritical duality of legislation (legal drugs vs illegal ones) because a single issue pressure group got their way, and the government has not got the political interest nor guts to reverse the situation (bad laws once enacted are very difficult to overturn).

Be warned, if Nanny had her way she would ban booze and fags as well!

This policy is failing and will continue to fail.

"Mr Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM

Reference: T9577/10 28 June 2010

Dear Mr Frost,

Thank you for your email of 29 May to the Home Secretary about the legalisation of controlled drugs. Your email has been passed to the Drug Strategy Unit and I have been asked to reply.

The Government has no intention of legalising the recreational use of any currently controlled drug. Its view is that the drugs subject to our misuse of drugs legislation are controlled for good reasons. Many – like heroin and crack cocaine – are clearly addictive and harmful to health and there is no prospect of the Government authorising their production, supply and possession for that reason. They are and will remain illegal.

Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would also run counter to the Government’s health and education messages. The Government’s educational message – to young people in particular – is that all illegal drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.

The Government’s objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs substantially. If such drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of supply and use, as well as the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, they do help to limit supply and use and deter experimentation.

Those who advocate legalisation suggest that this would reduce a range of harms associated with the illicit control and supply of drugs. But this view tends to take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation; and only takes account of the acquisitive crime that feeds some drug habits, not the crimes committed under the influence of drugs or the drawbacks to a lawful, regulated market. Also, the legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals. Such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

A regulated market for drugs through controlled outlets (e.g. licensed pharmacies) would certainly provide the opportunity for tax revenue. But establishing the level of taxation would be difficult. Setting the price too high would open the door for the illegal markets, while setting it too low could feed that same market. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs which can be substantial and are usually borne by the taxpayer, who needs to be persuaded that the tax is just. Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

Also, it is not clear how such increased access would reduce the incidence of drug taking, if at all. On the contrary, government backing in the form of making controlled drugs readily available might exacerbate the problems and the temptations rather than reduce them. Meanwhile, unilateral action on this or any other government's part would undoubtedly encourage unwanted drug tourism to the country concerned, not least from drug dealers, in the event that there were no similar move to legalise internationally.

The Government understands the arguments for legalising controlled drugs in a regulated way and considers that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. At a time when it is doing much to try to reduce the use of tobacco and misuse of alcohol due to ever greater concerns about their safety, it would be perverse to take the huge gamble with public health that would be involved in legalising currently illegal drugs.

Whilst there will always be calls to legalise, this will not deflect the Government from continuing to focus on its existing multi-faceted approach to drug control. It is committed to reducing drug use and drug harms through targeted actions which have the most impact. In the Government’s view, prevention, education, early intervention, enforcement, treatment and reintegration achieve the best results in addressing the problems of drug addiction, its causes and its impact on crime.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

As people "chill out" at Glastonbury and other festivals, I was gemused to read this week that Nanny's new Minister for Crime Prevention, James Brokenshire, has written to festival organisers asking them to warn people at the dangers of "legal highs".

Letters were also sent to councils and police forces in festival areas.

Brokenshire said:

"We are going to change our drug laws so we can respond quickly to emerging substances by introducing a temporary ban while we seek full scientific advice."

Which part of the word "legal" doesn't he get?

Ban something without evidence?

Surely not???

Nanny really hates the idea of people getting stoned, yet she allows/taxes booze and fags (which are also addictive and dangerous if consumed to excess, as is caffeine).

Oh for a less prissy time when Harrods sold (up to around 1908) "Welcome To London" packs, containing syringes and coke.

I'm not a festival person myself, but I wish those who are (eg Rolf Harris and the Prince of Wales) a "chilled out" time.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Oh dear, I see that Nanny has got her beer goggles on again and is using them to have a go at the middle classes.

Nanny's Department for Educashun website (maybe one of the hundreds of useless government sites that our "brave new coalition" is going to shut down?) has published a report that states that there there is a "drinking culture" in some schools dominated by white and middle class pupils.

Shock horror!

It seems that white or non-religious teenagers (what has religion got to do with objecting to booze? Catholics use it in the sacraments) are more likely to drink alcohol.

The study alleges that 55% of young people have tried alcohol by age 14, with girls more likely to do so.

So farking what?

I was given my first sip of beer (barley wine) when I was but a few months old. Children who are brought up with alcohol, in a family setting (eg the French), are more likely to use it "sensibly" than those who are brought up in an atmosphere that gives it the kudos of being "forbidden".

At school I was a founding member of the Oenological Society (wine brewing/drinking). We brewed some real "piss water", but had the right to drink it!

I would also venture to point out that those pubs who have a mix of ages in their customer base are less likely to have bother, than those where only the "young" hang out. The young should be drinking in the presence of the older generation, in order for them to be brought to heel when they start to misbehave.

It's called "responsibility", something that Nanny has tried to denude us of for many ears.

The report, if anyone is interested, says:

"We found that young people who attended schools with a larger proportion of white pupils were more likely to have tried alcohol regardless of their own ethnic group."

Sadly not everyone seems to have realised that ZaNuLabour no longer runs this country, and are still trying to apply that party's discredited social engineering policies.

The core of ZaNaLabour's policies was the "won't someone think of the children?" credo, which was placed at the heart of absolutely everything they did.

Our old "friends" from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) are still firm believers in the policy, and are demanding that pregnant women (when they book a midwife) be given a carbon monoxide test.

For why?

To determine if they are smokers.

Now we are all aware that smoking during pregancy can cause issues with the foetus. However, so can many other things that expectant mothers do.

Whilst it is easy to let this one slip by, as a non smoker, it is but the slippery slope.

Once NICE have the test results Nanny will then "encourage" the mothers to stop smoking.

The "encouragement" will be made harsher and harsher as time progresses, until it will become mandatory for expectant mothers to quit smoking.

Having conquered the smoking demon, Nanny (NICE) will move on to the drinkers (and demand blood tests for booze).

Once that is done, NICE will demand that pregnant mothers be monitored for their food intake.

Once all of these issues have been neatly dealt with, Nanny will demand that people be given a certificate of "good health" before they try to conceive.

Over reaction?

Variations on this form of state interference in people's breeding habits has been, and is, practised by a number of countries around the world.

Britain is not immune from such policies, as long as quangos such as NICE are allowed to exist.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

I see that North Somerset Council have decreed that wooden crosses on graves are a health and safety risk, and have removed (without prior consultation with the family) a cross marking the grave of Rosemary Beggs.

Here are a few observations:

1 The cross was only 2ft high, not exactly likely to kill anyone if it fell over.

2 Surely those in charge of the cemetery checked first, before the cross was planted, as to what sort of memorial was going to be placed on the grave?

3 Should not those who removed the cross first contacted the family?

4 The cross was one of a number of crosses in the same cemetery. The council have, seemingly, removed them all. Why did the council not issue an advisory before this, warning people that wooden crosses were not acceptable?

I fail to see how a 2ft cross is dangerous, given that it is a cemetery not a public highway.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Sainsburys must really like receiving my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award...cos blinky, blonky, blimey they been and gone and done it again!

Lewis Peagam, a 28 year old bank manager, was well gobsmacked when he went to buy a pg DVD (Firehouse Dog) from a Birmingham branch of Sainsburys.

The shop assistant refused to sell it to him unless he handed over proof of his age, which he didn't have.

A colleague was with Mr Peagam, and she offered her driving licence as proof of id, in order to buy it for him. However, the shop assistant refused to sell it to her as "you're only buying it for him".

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

I see that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the organisation that bans expensive cancer treatments, is continuing with its mission of banning things.

It has called for a ban on trans fats (artificial fats) in foods.

Fair enough, as I personally prefer the taste and texture of real butter (not artificially "spun" gloop) and real lard rather than veggie oil etc.

However, NICE then go on to say that saturated fat (eg butter) should also be cut back.

Now if you ban one type of fat, you will have to replace it with another.

As I have noted repeatedly, the body is like a car engine; deprive it of oil (ie fat) and it will seize up. It stands to reason that blood flows through the veins much easier if the veins have a good coating of fat:)

For good measure NICE also want salt reduced (as per their usual whine).

Salt is necessary for a human to survive. Salt tablets are mandatory for those working in hot climates, a normal healthy person who drinks water and moves around will excrete/sweat out any "excess" salt quite naturally.

As a child I used to "shave" blocks of sea salt for my mum (she bought these large cubes wrapped in blue paper, anyone remember them?), and I would often take chunks of salt to munch on whilst shaving the blocks. I am now middle aged, with no heart/blood pressure issues, it did me no harm.

Monday, June 21, 2010

I am pleased to see that Lord Young of Graffham, tasked with reviewing health and safety rules, holds the health and safety rules which prevent the police and rescue services from actually rescuing people in as much contempt as the rest of us do.

He told the Times that the emergency services were "paid for doing a job that involves risk" and legislation should not be "an excuse for inaction".

He also holds seems to hold the compensation culture, and ambulance chasing "personal injury" lawyers in absolute contempt.

Good!

Muiris Lyons, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, postulated to the BBC the rather bizarre theory that personal injury lawyers want to see accidents reduced:

"Our organisation is all about trying to reduce the incidents of injuries and I'm sure there is common ground there [with the review].

But where people are needlessly injured, through others' fault, they should be able to obtain access to justice."

How exactly does a cash payment bring someone back from the dead, or heal a broken leg (which will have already been attended to by the NHS)?

I will follow the progress of Lord Young's review, and its actual tangible outcomes, with interest.

I do not doubt Lord Young's integrity, nor his desire to end the worst excesses of the Nanny state. However, he has an uphill battle as there are many vested interests who will do their utmost to keep their petty dictatorships and small minded rules going.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

However, I would concur that when I drink several Irish coffees at the end of a meal I feel very "tip top" and "chipper" indeed. I also imagine it is very good for burning off the calories, as my heart rate certainly shoots up and I feel decidedly frisky:)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

How amusing to see that Nanny's absurdly daft and onerous child vetting rules, which would have come into force next month and adversely impacted 9 million people who work with children, are to be put on hold.

There will be a review of the entire vetting and barring scheme, with a "scaling back" likely to follow.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the BBC:

"You were assumed to be guilty until you were proven innocent, and told you were able to work with children.

All sorts of groups out there were deeply concerned about this and how it was going to affect them.

There were schools where they were very concerned that foreign exchanges could be finished as a result of this, parents were worried about looking after other people's children after school."

The 9 million who would have had to register would have been charged £64 each (£576M in total).

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

My thanks to Mr Potato Head for sharing this gobbet of Nanny sun risk nonsense with us.

"Just thought whilst I'm here I'd share a little gem from my son's school. The teachers will not apply sun cream to the kids (ages 4-9 in this school) because of fear of being labelled kiddy fiddlers. Nor will they allow the kids to apply it themselves due to elf n'safety risk to little ones eyes.... Parents are not allowed to attend to their little ones during school hours either. Well whatever, I say, some sun is not the end of the world, and will no doubt do their Vitamin D levels some good.

However, the school has put up large (needless to say, patronising) posters advising parents on safety in the sun for kids! It includes the very sage advice that young ones are especially vulnerable whilst out playing at school during lunch times..."

Only Nanny could so publicly make a fool of herself in this manner, yet still not realise that she looks so foolish.

Her primary objective here appears to be to ensure that the kids do not venture outside at all during breaktime.

Unfortunately, as loyal readers of this site know, the issue runs deeper than a specific piece of legislation banning a particular activity.

The disease of risk aversion and health and safety runs so deep in the body of our country, and the minds of the jobsworths (to whom we give excessive powers), that people make their own "interpretations" of the law (even if the law is actually not in place) and ban whatever takes their fancy on the grounds of "health and safety"/risk.

The issue lies in the mindset of the jobsworths (councils, teachers, bureaucrats etc) who set the bans, and the sheeple who allow them to get away with it.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Even David Cameron is attempting to be seen to be bothered, and is going to fly the cross of St George flag from Downing Street.

However, within the Nanny state there lurks a group of people who fear the cross of St George and being identified as being "Engerlish".

I cite the case of Bolton At Home (a company that manages 18,000 council homes in the Manchester area), which has banned its 1,200 workers from flying England flags on their own cars.

For why?

Nanny deems the flag to be racist!

Nanny also deems the flying of the flag as "discrimination" against those who don't support England during the World Cup.

What a bunch of pathetic twats!

These are the private cars of employees, not company owned vehicles; Nanny has no authority over what people append to their own vehicles.

The rule (no flags, stickers, posters etc) applies to Bolton At Home branded vehicles (fair enough), public offices (fair enough) and any personal vehicles used for work and for which an employee claims 'essential or casual car allowance'.

Twats!

Being English is not a matter of ethnic origin, or indeed geographic location, it is a state of mind.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

I dare say it has not escaped too many people's notice that the World Cup is about to descend upon us.

Many butts will be firmly glued to chairs during the upcoming footy fest, quite how long British butts will be glued rather depends on how long Ingerlund stay in the competition.

Anyhoo, you will doubtless not be surprised to learn that Nanny has a few words to say on the subject. In fact she has set up an entire website dedicated to giving people patronising advice about what to eat, drink and do whilst watching the football.

Quote:

"Whether you're a dedicated football supporter, or someone who just succumbs to football fever every four years, you're bound to be glued to the TV for at least some of the World Cup.

If you're really keen, you could watch 64 matches in 31 days – that's 96 hours of football, without counting extra time or penalty shoot-outs!

Although it might feel like you're eating and drinking football, you'll need some real food and drink too. So check out our tips on how to make some healthier choices about what you’re going to eat and drink while you’re feasting on the footie."

Nanny even offers advice on what food to order from your local takeaway!

I thought the government was meant to be cutting wasteful, patronising shite like this?

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Given how much cleavage appears to be on display these days (more than even in a tacky 1970's "Confessions of..." film), I am surprised that she has got rather worked up over the rather trivial matter of a hairdresser advertising his Ramsgate based business using a photo of his wife.

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums from Thanet District Council got their knickers in twist over Marcello Marino's poster of his wife Yaice, and have told Mr Marino to take it down.

Seemingly the council were moved into "action" having received a staggering total of ONE complaint from some tedious person about the amount of cleavage shown.

As the old saying goes "one man can change the world", pity that in this case it is a miserable sod with nothing better to do with their lives than complain.

For good measure, Jocelyn McCarthy of the Ramsgate Society, said it was distasteful to show "so much cleavage on a public building".

A council spokeswoman said:

"For a banner of this size and location, planning permission to display an advert is required.

We have written to the owner explaining this, and also that planning permission for this advert would be unlikely as the property is in a conservation area."

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

It has been a wee while since I have awarded my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it is a double award, going to Bexley Borough Council and Bexley Police.

Hoorah!

For why?

Well, my old muckers, as we know Nanny and her minions have something of a bee in their collective bonnets over booze.

Aside from the usual rules and regulations that Nanny imposes on us, and attempts to enforce, allegedly designed to make us drink less there is also the time honoured rule that publicans ought not to serve people who are clearly "out of their box".

Break this rule, and the hapless publican will be fined £80 on the spot and possibly another £1000.

So, guess what Bexley Borough Council and Bexley Police did?

They hired two sober actors (a rarity) to visit 10 pubs in Bexley. They ordered drinks whilst swaying and announcing to bar staff in a slurred voice "I'm hammered", reeking of alcohol, slurring their words, fumbling their change and shoving other customers on their way to the bar.

They were served in every pub.

The actors then gave a repeat performance at a conference for local publicans, and bar managers who stated that they would be refused service and asked to leave.

Hah!

Nanny had them at her mercy, the police proudly stood up and said:

"You've already served them."

Hah!

I bet that gave the police a real "rush", you can almost see them drooling in anticipation before they made that announcement.

Clive Cain, head of public protection (what the fark is "public protection" by the way?) at Bexley Council, said:

"Whilst it is illegal to serve a drunk, the law does not define when someone is drunk. This pioneering initiative has demonstrated the ease with which drunks can be served. It has highlighted the urgent need for improvements in training, advice and managerial support for bar staff."

Ah so there we see the problem that Nanny needs to overcome, when is a drunk a drunk?

Under normal circumstances this judgement would be left to the commonsense of the publican. However, as we know, Nanny has banned commonsense.

A couple of rather obvious points re this particular case, that Nanny might like to remember:

1 The police are not allowed to use entrapment to obtain a conviction.

2 The actors were not actually drunk, therefore no crime has actually been committed.

Maybe the publicans could hire actors to pretend to be publicans, whilst serving pretend drunks, and the police could pretend to arrest them etc?

Needless to say, Bexley Police are planning to step up their undercover initiative for the World Cup.

Can the police charge the police with wasting police time?

Bexley Borough Council and Bexley Police, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Monday, June 07, 2010

As we all know, despite our "brave" new government's promise to scrap the bin tax this week, local councils view refuse collection as an easy way to screw their local residents out of money.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Swansea council tried to bully and intimidate a 95 year old grandmother (name not supplied) the other week, over the "heinous bin crime" of putting a plastic butter tub in the wrong recycling bag.

Residents of West Cross (Swansea) are provided with a staggering seven recycling bins, and a set of 'rubbish rules' that they are ordered to follow.

Failure to follow the deliberately complex rules results in fines and prosecution.

Ker Farking Ching!

The lady had washed 15 tins (for fark's sake, why the fark are we having to waste water washing tins that will only be chucked in a landfill in India anyway?), and put them in a green bag for collection. However, she had mistakenly added an empty butter tub, which should have gone in the pink bag.

The ever vigilant bin police saw the container (quite how they have the time to go rummaging through people's rubbish I don't know), and left a legal notice advising why they had not collected the bag and warning that mixing up recycling can lead to prosecution.

Swansea Council, having been outed in the media, were quick to backpedal:

"It was never our intention to prosecute the lady and we would like to apologise for any confusion and distress this may have caused her or her family.

We hope this doesn't discourage her or any other residents from recycling. Councils have challenging recycling targets to meet and we want the public to work with us to reduce the amount of waste we send to landfill."

Of course it was their intention to prosecute, otherwise why place a legal notice on her rubbish bag?

Local councils are conning us wrt refuse collection, as has been reported on TV large amounts of refuse (allegedly intended for recycling) has been sold by councils to companies who then sell it on to India where the rubbish is buried in landfill.

This is nothing short of a con trick and extortion racket perpetrated by local councils; with the sole objective of screwing us for as much money as possible, in order to pay for their final salary pension schemes (which are severely underfunded).

Local councils should be told to fark off!

They cannot function without the placid acceptance of their rules and regulations by their residents, it is time that the residents took charge and stood up to them.

Friday, June 04, 2010

My thanks to a loyal reader who forwared me the text of a letter that appeared in the "Eastern Daily Press" the other day, wrt Dwile Flonking:

"BRIAN HANNAHChairman of North NorfolkDistrict Council Licensing Committee

Just like Mr Potter ( Letters, June 2nd) I am very pleased that the Dwile Flonking Festival at Ludham was a great success. But Mr Potter describes as a "jobsworth" the person who said the event might contravene laws on drinking games.

It is worth noting that officers of the North Norfolk District Council were concerned when they were made aware of plans for an event which may have threatened to contravene new national laws introduced in April, to reduce the impact of over-consumption of alcohol, laws we strongly support as a council. A visit was made to the publican involved to offer the best advice as to how she could continue to hold the Dwile Flonking event without breaking the law.

There were no thoughts of spoiling legitimate enjoyment and entertainment, but we wish to ensure that the law was upheld - otherwise the publican would have been putting her licence at risk.

The result of our officers timely intervention was that the event was held successfully, it provided enjoyment and entertainment for many people, the publican was able to boost business and everything was undertaken within the law of the land.

The country's financial situation has now become so desperate, that Nanny has resorted to theft and demanding money for the safe return of the stolen merchandise.

Marcus Morris (of Leeds) discovered this to his cost the other day, when he parked his VW Polo near to Leeds city centre as he went for a job interview.

Some 30 minutes later he returned to find that his car had gone.

Guess who took it?

Yes, that's right, the police.

For why?

The police told Mr Morris that he had left a window open and a CD wallet in the back of the car.

Hence, for his own good, the police took the car to a storage facility.

When Mr Morris collected his car the next morning Nanny gave him a bill for £150.

Chief Insp Elizabeth Belton of West Yorkshire police said:

"Officers regularly patrol our communities looking for opportunities to prevent crime, which is exactly what has happened on this occasion.

The vehicle was left insecure with valuables on show in an area with significant levels of car crime and we were unable to locate the owner.

We make absolutely no apology whatsoever for the officer's actions, which have prevented this vehicle becoming a target for thieves. Had a thief got there first it would have been a very different story.

We need people to take responsibility for their own property and take any valuables with them when they park up. We hope Mr Morris's story will serve as a reminder."

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Sir Stephen Muckle | MySpace VideoLast week I observed that Tesco were playing the "minimum price of alcohol" game, and warned that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were sniffing around too.

Well, as expected, this week NICE have come out fully in favour of a minimum price of alcohol, claiming that it will reduce "problem/binge" drinking.

To my understanding of what Nanny claims to be "binge" drinking, this occurs when people are out and about in pubs and bars. Setting a minimum price will not affect these places, all it will do is push up the price of booze in supermarkets and off licences.

NICE also want more advice pushed down our throats about the dangers of booze.

The BBC, for good measure, interviewed some hapless/hopeless female this morning who had walked on some broken glass when pissed.

Boo Hoo!

She claimed that had she been given more "advice" about the dangers of booze, then the accident might not have happened.

For fark's sake!

When you drink 20 pints, or the equivalent, you know full well that you are pissed. In the event you walk on broken glass, or fall flat on your face you have no one to blame but yourself.

How stupid and irresponsible are people these days?

When I am pissed I immediately summon my sedan chair to convey me from bar to bar.

Does NICE really think that people with this level of "intelligence" will ever heed more advice (from which we are already drowning)?

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Nanny's minions from Norfolk District Council have managed to put the jackboot into a centuries old sport that held its inaugural world championships this Saturday at the Dog Inn pub, in Ludham, Great Yarmouth.

The sport?

Dwile Flonking.

What is Dwile Flonking?

"Flonkers" use a pole to propel a beer soaked cloth at opponents, with the aim of slapping them in the face.

In the event that a flonker misses his/her target twice in a row, the flonker must drink a "pot" (half pint) of ale in one go.

Seems fair enough, yes?

Not if you are Tony Gent, the council's licensing officer. He read about the contest and immediately contacted Lorraine Clinch (landlady of the Dog Inn), to tell her that the contest contravenes Nanny's laws on speed drinking.

New laws introduced in April, by the last bunch of twats in parliament, banned; drinking games, including time limit, all-you-can-drink offers, free alcohol prizes and binge drinking promotions.

Breaches of the law can lead to pubs losing their licences, fines of up to £20,000 for landlords and six months in prison.

For the record, not that Nanny gives a fark, Dwile Flonking is believed by some to have been played in Norfolk and Suffolk since the middle ages (others think it was invented in 1966).

A spokesman for the council droned on and claimed that the pub was visited by the local Nannies for the pub's own good, so that the rules could be then be adapted satisfactorily.

The contest did take place, six teams of 10 battled it out. However, Nanny did win, no beer was downed in one; only ginger beer.

As ever, a local council proves once again that the state is the enemy of the people.

-
*Easy 24-Hour Glazing*
In the event that you need your windows repaired avoid Easy 24-Hour Glazing.
Here is an email I sent to them 5th November:
"
...

6 years ago

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive